Did she really "rape" him?

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

What if the genders were reversed? You think people would treat him the same?

Well, folks, usually this is the point at which I make a comment about the difference between what is legal and what is right.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Well, folks, usually this is the point at which I make a comment about the difference between what is legal and what is right.

I think you're exactly right. Now comes the hard part. Explain why.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[funks 1]

Quote

Bullshit. Comparison valid.

The issue is whether she lacked the ability to consent. If yes, then it is rape.

Note that it is not, "Sexual contact without consent, unless the accuser put him or herself in a position wherein he/she could not consent, in which case consent shall be implied in all cases, because the accuser should have been more careful knowing that this could happen."

Nope. It's whether the person could consent. That's the end of it. A nice, easy way that avoids complications.

Sorry, I disagree. You are talking about a drug that knocks a person out, unconscious. This is not about a chick who passed out drunk and then was taken advantage of. That would be rape. No question. This is about a person who consumes a legal substance and can still say yes or no and whether or not that yes is valid while they are in that condition.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

This is about a person who consumes a legal substance and can still say yes or no and whether or not that yes is valid while they are in that condition.

Right. We understand. However, that is not the law.
The law is, if she is drunk that evening and changes her mind the next morning, you go to jail. She doesn't have to take a breathalyzer, she just has to tell the officer that she was drunk.

That's the law just about everywhere.

[funks 1]

Quote

Quote

This is about a person who consumes a legal substance and can still say yes or no and whether or not that yes is valid while they are in that condition.

Right. We understand. However, that is not the law.
The law is, if she is drunk that evening and changes her mind the next morning, you go to jail. She doesn't have to take a breathalyzer, she just has to tell the officer that she was drunk.

That's the law just about everywhere.

Is it actually a written law? Or is it more of a moral issue that ends up getting dragged through the courts? If it is a law, please show me where i can find information on it.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, folks, usually this is the point at which I make a comment about the difference between what is legal and what is right.

I think you're exactly right. Now comes the hard part. Explain why.

_Am

1. There is no "perfect" system, so the legal system is an attempt to approximate it.
2. The attorney is supposed to use all means to make sure that their client are given the best defense.
3. In cases like civil suits, "fair" is a tough concept to define. How do you divide a much-loved cat? What is fair compensation?

Sources of the problem.
1. Reprehensible people use every definition to defy justice, not create it. Some are the clients, some are attorneys.
2. The laws have given bad people the ability to destroy decent people with the wave of a piece of paper.

End result
1. Judges destroy good peoples lives.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

In PA its rape only if YOU administered the intoxicating substance.

Wrong. Look up the statutes on 2nd degree rape and indecent deviant sexual intercourse.

As far as "rape" being diltued, it already is by different gradings. Breaking into someone elses house and raping them at gunpoint is one kind of rape and judged that way...getting someone drunk to the point they don't know what they're doing and having sex with them is another kind of rape. It's still rape.

[craichead 0]

Quote

What I hypothetically did with my wife last night doesn't need such treatment.

So, uh, honey...can you turn this hypothetical situation into reality tonight?



Had to comment since I'm his wife. I will no longer participate in this discussion...unless another opportunity to razz my husband comes along.

_Pm

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

This is about a person who consumes a legal substance and can still say yes or no

If that's the case, and the person has capacity to say "yes" then it isn't rape. Different facts.

Of course, it may take a year, cost you tens of thousands of dollars and a few days in jail and more in trial to get to the point where there are reasonable doubts as to whether it was without consent.

Of course, the above is not the worst case scenario.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jessefs 0]

Quote

getting someone drunk to the point they don't know what they're doing and having sex with them is another kind of rape. It's still rape.

"Spanish Fly" and the like aside, how exactly do you get someone drunk? I'm not arguing with you, just trying to figure out for myself how much responsibility should be put on the consumer of an intoxicating substance. Should I be held more, the same, or less accountable if I kill somebody while driving drunk? What about choosing a sexual partner? How do you define the point that I am no longer able to "give consent"?

<* Spread the Love! *>

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Hypothetical.

I got REALLY drunk with my wife last night, and we bucked like funnies for hours on end.

I guess we raped each other?

That seems to tremendously devalue the word.

_Am

Hey, it happens all the time. Trust me, I had my times hooking up and spending the night at the Checkers hotel instead of being home. Hmmm. What would have happened if Regina had second thoughts the next morning. We were both pretty trashed that night.

Scary thought, when you think about it...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[AndyMan 7]

I just don't understand how two people can willingly rape each other at the same time.

It doesn't make sense, and it contorts the word into something completely different than the common ussage.

That's a disservice.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[funks 1]

Quote

Quote

This is about a person who consumes a legal substance and can still say yes or no

If that's the case, and the person has capacity to say "yes" then it isn't rape. Different facts.

Of course, it may take a year, cost you tens of thousands of dollars and a few days in jail and more in trial to get to the point where there are reasonable doubts as to whether it was without consent.

Of course, the above is not the worst case scenario.

What i am confused about are the comments in this thread that refer to someone who is drunk and says yes and then change their mind the next day and cry rape. Someone even mentioned that there is an actual law giving someone that right.....

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

The law states that it is "Statutory Rape". It is believed that a child of that age is not capable of true consent.

Think back to when you were 13. If some hot female -- whether 13 or 34 -- offered herself for sex with you, you woulda done it. You would have known, to yourself, that it was YOUR CHOICE to do so. No one would have been able to convince you that she took advantage of you and made you do something you didn't freely decide you wanted to do.

Why is the decision tohave sex one that a kid can be said to have not made on his own (i.e. he was manipulated and taken advantage of -- "raped" -- by an adult woman) but, say, the decision of a young female figure skater to devote every waking hour to harsh and strict training so that she can possibly -- possibly -- go to the Olympics (foregoing nearly all the pleasures of childhood for this "Olympic dream") is a freely-made choice?

You see this all the time. Kids' decisions are made for them by adults. The utter direction of their LIVES is dictated by the overbearing parents. But when some adult comes along who LOVES the kid, even though he's a "minor," and he is a PARTY to the decision to enter a love relationship that includes sex, that decision to affect the kid's life is wrong.

How many kids are pushed along by the parents' dreams when the kid doesn't even want what the parent wants for him? That's just as damaging, or more so, than giving a hormonally-charged adolescent boy the sex he's fantasizing about every night anyway, because at least, in whatever capacity a young boy has, he does want it.

I think there are no easy answers here. But if I had had the opportunity to have sex when I was 13, whether with a girl my age or with, say, a college girl, I would have jumped all over that and been glad for the chance, and I would have fought against anyone who tried to step in and tell me that I was just not old enough to decide that for myself. I was old enough to decide I wanted karate lessons. I was old enough to decide to accompany my dad when he went flying in a Cessna. I was old enough to be able to come home to an empty house if Mom and Dad were out, and be trusted to use the stove and oven and stuff. But not to have sex? Bullshit.

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[billvon 2,990]

> I was old enough to decide I wanted karate lessons. I was old enough to
> decide to accompany my dad when he went flying in a Cessna. I was old
>enough to be able to come home to an empty house if Mom and Dad
>were out, and be trusted to use the stove and oven and stuff. But not to
> have sex? Bullshit.

Pregnant 13 year olds are bad for society. It doesn't matter whether YOU thought you were ready or not; it takes two to have sex, and you aren't the one that would have had to live with the result. (And no, I don't believe that 13 year olds are responsible enough to use birth control effectively.)

That's just one of the reasons statutory rape is illegal. Drinking a beer is also not that bad, but you can't do that until you're 21. Flying in your dad's plane? His call, as was everything else you did with consent from your parents. You did not take those risks on your own.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Why is the decision tohave sex one that a kid can be said to have not made on his own (i.e. he was manipulated and taken advantage of -- "raped" -- by an adult woman) but, say, the decision of a young female figure skater to devote every waking hour to harsh and strict training so that she can possibly -- possibly -- go to the Olympics (foregoing nearly all the pleasures of childhood for this "Olympic dream") is a freely-made choice?

Because figure skating ain't sex.

Why is it when a 13 year old girl decides to have sex with a 34 year old male, that's wrong, but it's ok the other way around?

Quote

But if I had had the opportunity to have sex when I was 13, whether with a girl my age or with, say, a college girl, I would have jumped all over that and been glad for the chance, and I would have fought against anyone who tried to step in and tell me that I was just not old enough to decide that for myself.

Me too, doesn't mean it's ok for an adult to put you in the position of making that choice. How do you think you would hold up emotionally after fathering two children at the age of 13. What if an adult offered you alcohol and you freely decided at 13 that you wanted to drink it. Should the adult be responsible?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

What i am confused about are the comments in this thread that refer to someone who is drunk and says yes and then change their mind the next day and cry rape. Someone even mentioned that there is an actual law giving someone that right.....

The problem is having some sort of evidence showing whether or not they were in control of themselves enough to give consent. Saying yes while drugged out of your gourd does not hold up in court as consent.

Hence, if she sobers up the next morning, decides she doesn't like what happened, she can claim she was too messed up to know what was going on, and zoom, you get a free ride fromt he boys in blue.

And like the rocketman said, spending your life savings and mortaging your house for a successful defense is not the worst case scenario.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Pregnant 13 year olds are bad for society. It doesn't matter whether YOU thought you were ready or not; it takes two to have sex, and you aren't the one that would have had to live with the result. (And no, I don't believe that 13 year olds are responsible enough to use birth control effectively.)

Um, how was this woman going to get a 13-year-old boy pregnant to add to society's problems?

And as I am aware, it is NOT illegal for two 13-year-old heterosexuals to go at it and make a baby. I have never heard of a 13-year-old getting in trouble for getting pregnant, or getting another 13-year-old pregnant. Is it only a problem for society if a 13-year-old is having an adult's baby??

[replyFlying in your dad's plane? His call, as was everything else you did with consent from your parents. You did not take those risks on your own.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

someone who is drunk and says yes and then change their mind the next day and cry rape

Okay. Now I see. The issue is that a person who consented while tanked up and then changed her mind the next day, by law, doesn't exist.

Why not? Because the person might have lacked the capacity to say "yes" in the first place. Which means she was unable to make up her mind in the first place.

Does that explain?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

But I am sick of people saying that just because they haven't crossed an imaginary line in age, kids of X or Y age are not capable of making decisions that are valid. We seem to be picking and choosing which decisions we consider a 13-year-old "able" to make "validly." (flying, karate, sex...) There is no logic to saying that a 13-year-old can make decisions about some things and he's making an informed, valid decision, but then change topics and now this is a matter on which he can't be said to make a valid decision just because he's too young. What about a 16-year-old?

First, it's not as much an imaginary line in age as much as a line in development. legally, that has been delineated in age ranges. What would you say if the child were 6? Many, if not most, children who are sexually abused come to find some enjoyment in the situation....because they don't have the emotional or cognitive capacity yet to understand why a person who is supposed to care for them has sex with them. The adult often tells the child he/she loves the child, and that sex is an expression of love. It can be DEVASTATING for children when an abuser is eventually caught and sent to prison (hopefully). It may take years for children to resolve in their own minds what has happened in their lives and to learn to develop relationships that are "normal." Not always....but many, many times it works out like that. If you think it's okay for a teacher to have a sexual relationship with a 13 year old who consents, then why not a 6 y/o who consents...? Is there an imaginary line in age that you would draw between those years????

Obviously there are lots of things parents make children do against their will. To equate those things (even though many are harmful) to having sex with children is ludicrous. I made my child eat peas....mostly because he was being a brat about it. I know that was wrong, but if I had expressed my love for him through sexual acts, that would be much, much more wrong. Most things lie on a continuum of some sort. Sexual abuse, at least in our society, is moving to an extreme that culturally we don't tolerate. At all ages, there are certain things that children are capable of making decisions about, and others that they are NOT capable of making decisions about. To give children responsibility to make decisions that they are old enough to make is good parenting, imho.

Peace~
lindsey

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[vonSanta 0]

Quote

rape = forcing someone to have sex against their will

A child, a mentally disabled person, an intoxicated person, etc. cannot legally form the will to consent because of an impariment. Therefore, it is rape.

Heh, except what constitutes a child is defined in an arbitrary manner.

In Denmark the age of consent is 15. I had a girlfriend when I was 16 who was a year younger than me. In most US states I'd be a sex offender for having sex with her.

It's pretty hard to say when a person has the mental capacity to give consent or not to. So we have arbitrary lines. We just gotta remember that they are just that - arbitrary lines.

Not advocating anything here - just pointing out the differences in conclusions in different cultures.

Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

[starkmtn 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, folks, usually this is the point at which I make a comment about the difference between what is legal and what is right.

I think you're exactly right. Now comes the hard part. Explain why.

_Am

The explanation isn't simple but any one of a few good books out there about male sexual abuse covers it in detail. The short(er) version:

In our culture, the premature exposure of a male child to sexual activity is often looked on as a fortunate event. It is not seen as the act of rape that it is. It is seen as "getting lucky," or as harmless. Boys are often referred to as the "invisible" or "hidden" victims of sexual assault for this reason. When people think of rapists, they tend to think of males and of strangers jumping out from behind bushes. In reality, most rapes are done by someone the victim knows and, while most rapists _are_ male, females can be and are rapists. It doesn't matter if the boy got a hard-on. Seven-year-old boys can get hard-ons. Any parent will tell you that babies get stiffies. Doesn't mean they're ready to get it on. Back to my point - if a male teacher had sex with a 13-year-old girl, he would be treated more harshly, because he fits the stereotype, AND because girls are considered "weaker" - needing protection from big bad rapists. Boys are "strong," boys should "just deal with it," boys should "be glad they got to score with that hot 20-something," etc. They are not seen as vulnerable and therefore not as vigorously defended. Because in our culture, boys are NOT supposed to be vulnerable - it's the kiss of death! Any guy here can probably remember either calling someone, being called, or seing some other kid being called a sissy and knows how deadly that moniker is. So if you take away a boy's innocence, you "make a man out of him." Take away a girl's innocence, and you've stripped her of something that is integral to our society's notion of femininity - a cardinal sin.

To consider the rape of boys as tantamount to the rape of girls requires a re-thinking of what we value in men and women. That is, unfortunately, a long way off. :(

"You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

[starkmtn 0]

Quote

Quote

rape = forcing someone to have sex against their will

A child, a mentally disabled person, an intoxicated person, etc. cannot legally form the will to consent because of an impariment. Therefore, it is rape.

Heh, except what constitutes a child is defined in an arbitrary manner.

In Denmark the age of consent is 15. I had a girlfriend when I was 16 who was a year younger than me. In most US states I'd be a sex offender for having sex with her.

In many U.S. states, there is a "Romeo and Juliet" clause - the statutory rape statute does not apply when there is a certain age difference (usually less than 2 years apart). For example, if the age of consent is 18, a 19-year-old can have sex with an 18-year-old and not get charged with statutory rape. This was to protect young people who are close in age from being prosecuted by parents who simply didn't approve of the relationship.

As for the arbitrariness, you're absolutely right. In this country, an 18-year-old is deemed able to vote for the Commander-in-Chief who can then send him/her off to die for corporate interests (er, I mean for freedom and democracy), but we deem that person incabable of enjoying alcohol responsibly. There are 14-year-olds I know with more judgment than some 33-year-olds I know. The problem is that a line must be drawn _somewhere_. We're too big a society to be able to interview each prospective voter and find out if that person should be allowed to vote at 14, or 18, or 22. Same with driving, drinking, renting a car, etc. I think the drinking line should be lower and the dying line should be higher. But I'm not Dictator of the World (yet). :)

"You guys should just do CRW. There are so many more ways to get killed, it makes a CYPRES seem safe." -Kevin Keenan

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

In Denmark the age of consent is 15. I had a girlfriend when I was 16 who was a year younger than me. In most US states I'd be a sex offender for having sex with her.

Wrong. For example in PA you are charged with statutory sexual assault if you have sex with someone under 16 and you are more than 4 years older than them.

It is to protect children, who are children by definition not arbitrarily, from predatory adults.

Quote

It's pretty hard to say when a person has the mental capacity to give consent or not to.

I don't think it's that hard to determine that when a 20 year old has sex with a 15 year old, the 20 year old is much better aware of the consequences and risks of that encounter than the 15 year old is.

Quote

Not advocating anything here - just pointing out the differences in conclusions in different cultures.

There is no difference. If you're 17 bang your 16 year old gf all you want.

[vonSanta 0]

Quote

Wrong. For example in PA you are charged with statutory sexual assault if you have sex with someone under 16 and you are more than 4 years older than them.

I stand corrected. However. The younger person will have the same degree of understanding and be ale to give the "same amount" of consent, whether he/she sleeps with a 15 year old or a 19 year old. Arbitrary definitions, again. Where'd the 4 years come from? No such law where I live.

Quote

It is to protect children, who are children by definition not arbitrarily, from predatory adults.

The definition of what constitutes a child is VERY arbitrary, and has shifted a lot in western culture - not to mention the huge differences between cultures. Not that many years ago, someone aged 14 was considered not a child, but a young woman/man. In many cultures today, people that young are wed away.

I'm not defending sickos right to go after young ones - my argument is about the definiton of "child".

Quote

I don't think it's that hard to determine that when a 20 year old has sex with a 15 year old, the 20 year old is much better aware of the consequences and risks of that encounter than the 15 year old is.

Aye, but see my point above. If the 15 year old has sex with another 15 year old, her awareness won't be higher.

Quote

There is no difference. If you're 17 bang your 16 year old gf all you want.

There clearly is, since I can go to bed with any 15 year old I want, without being labelled a pedophile. You can't. Is this good or bad? I dunno, and it's irrelevant to my point. And to my life, since I really really find teenagers annoying.

Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst